Anyone concern about turbo?

source for any of this? I’m not aware of any data for 0-60, mpg, NVH, or emissions.

Furthermore I’d be very surprised if the non hybrid 4th gen is slower than the 3rd gen. I’d wager it’s significantly quicker. I hope for more than 1mpg better that may be all we get.

 

The Subaru was a 1994 1.8L push rod motor, indestructible nothing like Subarus of today with rod knocks and bad head gaskets. I live in Utah and drive up Parleys canyon every day.

 

Probably talking about the Highlander, which is a bit slower in the quarter mile and possibly 0-60. That's no surprise as the V6 was rated at 295 hp vs 265 in the turbo 4. New tacoma non hybrid should be a bit quicker or no worse than the 3rd gen assuming similar weight, though the bigger tires might slow it down a bit.

 

A little shopping and I bet a modest mileage 2nd or 3rd gen with the 2.7 could be found. My '13 only has 44k, but it's not 4wd, or I'd let you make me an offer.

Enough. Off to my safe place you go. Before you burst a blood vessel.

 

If I was considering a 2024 Tacoma, the turbo would not concern me at all. Volvo, Saab and Toyota have been making them for years. The only caveat there is Volvo and Saab turbo-equipped engines were built (overbuilt) to handle the turbo: In the Volvo's: heavier crank, connecting rods, oil-spray squirters to cool the piston skirts, sodium-filled valves, water-cooled turbo bearings, and more. my 98 GLT SE 5-cyl Inter-Cooled Turbo has almost 200,000 miles currently. It runs perfectly and it flies when you ask it to. No turbo lag. Oil changes every 3-5,000 miles is the key. At least on those two brands, if you have turbo problems or failures on them: it's your own fault.

 

I wonder if toyota has any famously overbuilt turbo engines from that era

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a43353345/2023-toyota-highlander-2-4-turbo-by-the-numbers/

Source.

Not good optics if you’re trying to wean your customers from six cylinders to four, but hopefully Tacoma will be different.

Meantime, I’ll take a V6 while they last, until the hybrid, thanks.

 

interesting, thanks.
Looks like Highlander went from 295hp 263ft-lbs to 265 /310.
Vs the taco going from 278hp /265ft-lbs To278/ 317
So the highlander lost 30 hp / gained 47 ft-lbs, vs the taco staying hp neutral and gaining 52 ft lbs. (all at a much lower RPM)
Id still bet the non hybrid turbo 4 is going to be noticeably quicker (and a lot drivable) than outgoing v6…but we’ll see!

Personally I’m still rocking the 2nd gen 4.0 primarily due to the lackluster 3rd gen powertrain, so I eagerly await to drive the 4th gen. Otherwise it’ll have to be a tundra next!

 

Mazda did. 323GTX in mid 80s. That 1.6 was stripped of it's turbo, turned N - S and put in the Miata. Which is why early Miatas easily handle boost.

Toyota had the MR2 and Supras. MK IV Supras had a 3.0 I-6 with twin turbos, one smaller than the other to cover both low and high RPM boost.

Nissan had several Z cars with turbos starting at least in the 80s through the 90s. The 2nd gen 300 ZXT was a 3.0 twin turbo

 

I forgot about the Supras' and the Z's. They were built to take anything and they never blew up. Fun, bullet-proof scary cars.

 

My 96 Land Cruiser has a 1Fz-FE I6, it is the overbuilt version of the 1jz and 2Jz and some maniacs put the 1Fz in their Supras and FRS/86 with 98mm turbos. These blocks can handle 2500hp.

https://engineswapdepot.com/?p=50969#:~:text=The engine bay holds a,running on a ProEFI ECU.

 

I'm not sure 'never' is an operative here, because some did suffer much abuse at the hands of their owners. Including being over boosted with poor fuel control, etc etc.

But I'd agree that a well maintained version in pretty much stock-ish form and boost levels were very reliable.

Even my '86 at something like 5 psi made a solid handful for the average joe in a 5.0 Stang.


And I forgot the Ford variants of the Mustang Turbo GT and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe.

Not to mention GMs Buick GNX and Syclones. The AWD Syclones had big time transmission issues for those hard AWD launches, but the engines were solid.

 

No concerns at all. Have had several turbos over the years, but more importantly two different diesel’s with turbos which was used to tow heavy 5th wheel trailers, never a problem and lots of power. Running solo with a 3/4 ton turbo diesel getting 22 mpg on the highway, not to shabby when my buddy would get somewhere in the teens, no turbo.

 

Holy shit brother. Don't scare me like that... I was like "what happened to turbo " did he get canceled??

 

I go 10-12K between oil changes in my twin turbo ‘19 M4. I’ve racked up over 170,000 miles and it still doesn’t burn a noticeable drop of oil between changes. I’m hoping Toyota‘s turbo motors can at least be as reliable with the recommended oil change intervals.

 

I go ~7K between oil changes in my '17 turbo ford 2.3L ecoboost. Oil is black af and smells like gas at that point. Full synthetic of course. Oil goes black after 2K miles. One time I ran it till the oil change light turned on around 9K miles, was still in the lower hash marks on the dip stick. All the turbo cars I've had in past 30 years do the same, black and gas smell after a while. But maybe ok with synthetic.

 

Sometimes I have to check to make sure we're in 2023 and not 1974.

Turbos are fine. They have been for years and will continue to be fine. If I were to get a 4gen, I'd also get a tune and turn up the boost a few lbs. I'd rather tune a turbo car than Naturally aspirated.

 

Once people start driving the 4G, think all their worries will go away. Current V6, when you mash the pedal to the floor it has think whether or not it wants to go. These new Turbo 4s they’ll actually push you back in the seat.

 

Wasn't that Ryan Renolds?

 

Wow you are brave and thats alot of miles!

I go 3k mile oil changes in my 19' M2c. I only drive about 3k miles a year so its basically an annual oil change..