But, Am I wrong?

I don't post a lot but this is getting under my skin. My 2nd gen has TRASH mpg as most Taco/Tundra. BUT... I am a bit old school and don't understand why I can't start swapping parts. All these builds on youtube for 2nd and 3rd Gens don't really touch the motor. "Top 5 mods for your Tacoma" is always body and suspension. On my 98 Dodge V8 (fuel injected, Flash PCM controlled) I could do a port/polish on throttle body, Edelbrock intake, add more air, headers, etc, etc. I did the same on my 94 22RE. Is this not done anymore? Are people accepting that Toyota knew what everyone wanted? I am in IT, but computers can't do it alone. Looking under my hood, that air intake system is "Extra" to say the least. I don't really see aftermarket intake manifolds (or I am missing it). Most guys leave all that plastic under the hood in the videos I find on youtube and google.

While I am at it, someone explain the huge mgp difference between the stock 5th gen 4Runner and 2nd gen Taco. I have both and it is not close.

I am really hoping that I am just a bad searcher on the interwebs. someone please prove me wrong and tell me I am looking in the wrong place.

 

5th gen runner has dual vvti engine, slight power bump and more efficient. I've seen that as well, better MPG.

The 2nd gen tacoma has a MASSIVE air filter. There's not much to be gained with an intake, people fail to see this.

Intakes are for noise, and maybe a touch of response, but shy of wide open, theres no wiggle.

Look up the exhaust gear mod, throttle body programmers, intake spacers, there's a few things that actually help a little with power or feel of the truck.

 

What do you call trash fuel mileage?
16-19 (maybe up to 21 if your lucky) is about the norm for 2nd gen stock V6 Tacomas depending how they are configured and driven, you drive over about 65, tow, or start adding lifts and bigger/heavier tires/wheels and it nosedives quick.

 

I’m confused.
You talk of trash mpg, but in the same post talk about doing more air.
With more air, comes more fuel.

The fact is, the cost and time aren’t worth the reward.
At least not for the majority of people. Why make it, if they won’t buy it?

 

You could always lsx swap. Plenty of aftermarket support there. As for fuel economy, it's a truck. What do you expect?

 

For the amount of money that you are going to spend to try and get better mileage you might as well leave the 4.0 stock and pick up a used 4 banger that gets about 30MPG and use it as a daily driver.

 

Thanks. I am speaking of the actual cast intake manifold itself. Being able to get a totally new one with reworked geometry from JEGS type of intake. My old school hot rod mindset only sees the dual filters and turns in the intake assembly and I want to rip it out. I am really leaning toward getting the spacer but want to see a dyno sheet from a actual Tacoma for it.

 

We already have a dual length intake manifold, it switches between long and short runners depending on RPM and load.
There's not alot left on the table in terms of gaining power without forced induction (turbo/supercharger), exhaust cam gears and a tune will get you a bit of performance and economy but it's nothing drastic.
One of our resident tuners has done a bit of dyno testing of the 4.0L with various NA bolt on mods and plans to do more.
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/1gr-fe-single-vvti-dyno-testing-by-ott.759616/page-5

Check out the performance and tuning section, if it can be/has been done to a Tacoma it's probably been discussed there at some point.
https://www.tacomaworld.com/forums/performance-and-tuning.8/

 

I've only done bigger tires. Trash mileage on highway is less than 14 with no gear, trailer, kayaks on it. I am not talking about breaking into 20s but I would at least like to get to 16/17 @60-64 mph.

I guess for me, I have a modified 5.9L Dodge P/U with 3.92 posi gears that was so bad on gas that the government had it as #1 on the gas guzzler list back in the early 2000s. If I keep my foot out of it on 93 octane I can get 18 mpg at the same speed. In 5th gear that truck is doing 3000 rpm or more. I find it hard to accept the mileage in this highly updated vehicle. Also, it is insane that Toyota rates the V8 Tundra and Tacoma nearly identical in EPA MPG new. Do you all think that is not worth questioning?

I agree that my mods will impact fuel consumption. But If I am gonna mod the truck, why not try to offset the mods with other mods? Well balanced modery.

True, but again I am trying to bring my knowledge up to this current vehicle. If you flow more air due to lower restriction, the engine has a surplus. With a disciplined foot in theory the fuel burn should be more complete. Now, maybe the computer does some magic to adjust for the restriction IDK. I like mods and I don't like accepting what someone gives me. STOCK SUCKS

 

Subbed for the JEGS intake manifold replacement

 

*Reliability tax* just live with it and be happy. Sorry you’ve owned dodge products in the past

 

It really is all computers. I don't think people realize the grip they have over the engine.

If you try to tweak the air, the ECU is going to try to counteract you by tweaking fuel and/or valve timing. Tweak the inputs beyond the ECU's control, its going to say it doesnt like it and pop a check-engine light.

You aren't getting anywhere with bolt on parts, except maybe exchanging your savings account for a placebo effect.

 

The fact that you could bolt parts onto those old pushrod engines and easily get more power shows how inefficient and primitive they were.

These newer engines are way more efficient. Efficient as far as getting the most power out the available displacement. If there was a way to gain 20-30 horsepower by simply "freeing up more air" the manufacturers would already be doing it

The Japanese pioneered this type of thinking. The first factory production engine to make (naturally aspirated) 100 hp per liter was the F20C in the Honda S2000.

 

The 1970 Camaro Z/28 has entered the chat. Came from the factory with a 350 and put out 360 HP, which is about 1 HP per cubic inch.

 

350ci is 5.7 liters haha

Z28 leaves the chat

 

Not anywhere close to 100hp per liter though, the chevy 350 is a 5.7L engine so 63hp per liter. Still pretty good performance for it's time and alot of american V8s at the time made more torque than horsepower.

 

Leaded fuel really helped too. It really was the best fuel. Basically the same as premium but runs cool and lubricates.

Someone needs to make an engine run on AVGas

 

wait, what's your goals?

more power or better fuel efficiency? because one can't have both. they directly contradict each other.

if you've already upsized your tires, a regearing might bring things back into line.

 

30 lol