Engineering Smart / Not Street Smart

Sometimes I wonder if the engineers really understand how Tacoma’s are used in everyday life or maybe they just don’t care.

My truck is a 2017 TRD Off Road with a manual transmission.

1) Reverse is geared way too high for normal backing up let alone with a trailer. This forces you into slipping the clutch to control speed. You can use low range 4 wheel drive but not on a hard surface. Old Jeeps had a transfer case that allowed for high and low in 2 wheel drive and 4 wheel drive. Then car companies changed to low range always being 4 wheel drive. My 96 Tacoma with a manual transmission had manual locking hubs. With the manual hubs unlocked I could use 2 wheel low range for backing a trailer. Not many options with my new Tacoma.

2) In the past you could let off the throttle going downhill with a manual transmission and the engine would hold back your speed. I start my day off driving 5 miles downhill. Without touching the accelerator the engine periodically speeds up to 2000 to 3000 rpm. When it does slow down it goes through the same cycle again. I suspect it is to keep the catalytic converter hot. It seems odd to me that it is a benefit to burn gasoline and sprinkling brake shoe dust going downhill versus not burning gasoline and not having to use your brakes. It is worse when pulling a trailer.

3) Low beam with these new headlights has a horizontal plane where the light does not go above. Probably works great on flat ground. On hilly roads when transitioning from downhill to uphill you can’t see past the front of the truck. Yes, the high beams work great but are not always practical with a flow of oncoming traffic.

 

Toyota engineers spending to much time in front of a keyboard thinking the world is flat ? Not enough time behind the wheel I suppose ?

All your issues are covered in the 3rd gen section and yes , very common complaints 2016 and up

 

Yes, most engineers know how their product is used by the majority of people. The key word here is majority. You got a manual (I did too) and we are now few percenters. In addition, you actually care enough to come to a forum to post. The funnel gets even tighter.
You apparently know something about how things work. Now you are in the tenth of a tenth of a percent. Now you are way beyond normal use and target demographic so No, the engineers are not designing for you at all.

Most don't buy a manual. The ones who do use their brakes. They don't pull trailers.

My advice is to next time test drive test drive test drive and buy what suits your daily application.

 

Reverse is geared way too high. It was in my last vehicle too. I don't know who they think will be driving 15mph in reverse, but it isn't many people.

Be careful though, around here engineers are gods that never make a bad decision.

 

You think Toyota engineers are bad? Try Ford!

 

Don't get me started about engineers. While there are some great ones there are some that must live in a dream world where they think they are making a prototype vehicle that will never leave a showroom. If it was a rule that in order to design a vehicle you had to fully disassemble and reassemble it, things would be completely different. I see things every day that make zero sense, or you can see where they forgot or overlooked something. Sometimes the best approach to designing something is to keep it simple. However most aim to be over engineered, and I think for the most part it usually comes back to bite them in the ass.

I'm sure a lot of it is pressure that the company puts on them to get a product drafted, designed, and out the door. Sometimes the manufacturers look at it as costing them more money upfront than in the long run to change something than delay a release or production of a vehicle. Crazy how it works

 

Fun fact. I am an engineer! One of the good ones though. There are definitely good and bad, as you say. It boils down to book smart vs. street smart. Book smart can tell you that this analysis and that test and yada yada means whatever. Street smart can actually see the end goal and put together a machine that works reliably, is manufactured easily and inexpensively, and can be fixed and maintained without struggle. The key is leveraging the two types off of each other.

Being an enthusiast who works on their own things means I always think about the same person on the other end when I make design choices. I hate screwing service people over, but sometimes there is no way out. Our constraints close in very quickly in every corner from cost, marketing (the customer), regulation, and physical space.

I will not be struck down by the engineering gods because every service tech and customer complains about a design decision I made.

 

It's all about meeting regulations and nothing more.

You have a 4.30 rearend. Issue with reverse is the lack of any low end torque.

 

Genuine question, couldn't that be compensated for with the reverse gearing in the transmission?

 

I think reverse is geared that way because it has to due to its physical positioning within the case and is at a ratio between 1-2. But onto general usage--

Trucks now have 6 spd gear boxes-- back when I was learning how to drive, I used a 4 spd and maybe a 5 speed and it was plenty to drive from 0 - 80 mph. IMHO, this truck isnt going on the track so close gear ratios are not needed. They should space them out and my suggestion would be: make 1 super short, so that you can pull yourself out of anything (with a full payload + a lightly loaded trailer), no questions asked. Then make 2nd much taller. In normal driving around the city, you just used 2nd. That will give 3 solid gears for accelerating (2-5). Leave 6th as a short OD. No need to have double OD, one is plenty. If you're towing, you shouldnt be in 6th anyways and so what if the truck is cruising at 3000+ RPM at 75 mph-- the engine is good for it. That will leave 6th to be low enough to be sub 2000 rpm at 75 mph and if I need passing power, Ill just pretend that I know how a manual works and shift down to 5th-- as it is now, I can be in 5th or 6th while cruising and barely tell the difference (again, especially with this engine wringing out much higher than the older 4.0).

Now onto reverse-- in the above hypothetical, if thats how reverse must be geared, this will give a much lower reverse that doesnt require clutch slipping and probably top out at like 7 mph. But just for fun, Toyota should let us have a 2LO mode too, like 4LO but without the front active. If thats too complicated, toss in a 3rd torsen diff in the center line like the MT FJ and let the computer allow shifting into 4LO but unlocked center diff so it doesnt bind.

I doubt they will ever make this so whats going to happen in the mountains while towing a trailer? Always pull up and park on dirt

 

The horizontal plane is from the cut off from projectors. It projects the light into a more usable area. Pretty much most modern cars are going to have this if you've never had projector headlights before.

 

Interesting thought - I assume the front hubs lock on an electrical solenoid and a sensor reads their position. I wonder if I could put a switch and fake the sensor on it so I can make my own 2LO. That would be super handy for trailering the boat in steep stop and go traffic situations.

 

Yep:

NV3550 (Wrangler 5-Speed): Reverse Gear 3.75, Rear End 3.21 Final Ratio 12.03:1

2016 Taco 6cyl Manual: Reverse Gear 3.39, Rear End 4.30, Final Ratio 14.57:1

2016 Taco 4cyl Manual: Reverse Gear 4.22, Rear End 3.92, Final Ratio 16.54:1

Taco is actually lower than a Jeep TJ

 

No locking hubs. All done in the front diff. But on the first gen tacomas yes it could easily be done. Cut one wire in the kick panel splice a switch to where ever you wanted in your truck and you now have 2 lo. I did it on mine and love it.

 

I think the American engineers do. I think the Japanese still handle the corporate parts like transmission and engine.

Japanese are great engineers, but they don't experience what Americans do on the road. Japan has megacities with efficient high quality mass transit. Rural Japan isn't continental size like America's mid-west and the South. So they don't understand long distance driving.

Also, because of our political and military might and our own oil resources, we have the cheapest gas of any country.

 

I agree with #1 - backing a a loaded trialed on a slight incline was difficult - see avatar pic - couldn't back up loaded with 50/50 mix. #2 & #3, I do not have/ or really affect my driving. I live in New Hampshire - plenty of little ups, downs, twists etc...

 

I think you misspelled "management" when you wrote "engineers"

 

I actually like the sharp-edge projector style, because I get light more where I need it, and since I drive mostly where there's traffic I'm less blinding to most people.

My mustang has two "fog" lamps inside of the main HIDs which give a nice short-range fill light. Tacoma less so, but the headlights are perfectly satisfactory in my book. no, I can't see perfectly at night, but no headlight will do that without blinding anyone oncoming. I can see well enough, and I never drive faster than I can see.

 

Our Forester has reflectors and a cutoff almost as sharp as the Taco. Both seem to have great lighting in the dark, on road. Off road, it would need either high beams or additional lighting.

 

The cut off line is achievable without projectors; from what I understand it's just a metal shield that cuts the light off. I remember in some retrofits people were literally pieces of pepsi cans to generate a blue cut off line. The difference is projectors should (in theory) have better throw as well.

But yes, in dark roads without any ambient light, additional lighting would be a plus. I'm looking at trying to integrate some ditch lights without having them stick out like a sore thumb or maybe see if @mesojdm can fab up some more mirrors with ditch lights incorporated into them.