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

Help me decide, 2.7 i4 AT 4x4 or 4.0 AT V6 RWD

Discussion in '4 Cylinder' started by redsox4life, May 2, 2011.

  1. May 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM
    #21
    jking3002

    jking3002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Member:
    #37187
    Messages:
    198
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jonathan
    Kentucky
    Vehicle:
    Scion tC
    Ricer muffler, window tent, trd shift knob.
    Here is an MPG comparison taken from Toyota.com of the following trucks-

    4.0 V6 PreRunner Access Cab AT- 17/21
    2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab AT- 18/21
    2.7 I4 4x4 Access Cab MT- 18/20
    As you can see, basically no difference.

    I remember seeing the 0-60 times on all the Toyota models in some kind of PDF file fact sheet on this site. Wish I could find it again. Anyway, the 4.0 blows the 2.7 with either tranny out of the water, and the 2.7 manual was like 2 full seconds or more, faster than the 2.7 auto if I remember right. I was thinking about trading my 5-speed reg cab 4x4 for the auto version, but once I saw that, there was no way I was going to do it. The 5 speed barely has enough power IMO.

    Do you need 4x4? If so, get a 2.7 if its all you can afford (not hating, I have a reg cab 4x4 because it's all I could afford). I would REALLY encourage you to get the manual if you do go with the 2.7 for the power reasons though.

    Do you not need 4x4? If so, and especially if you need to tow, get the V6. I've honestly been looking to trade my 4x4 regular cab for a V6 access cab PreRunner. The 09s and newer PreRunners can handle snow and light offroading just fine in my opinion.

    Want more honest answers, and not just someone supporting THEIR truck, PM me.
     
  2. May 3, 2011 at 6:39 PM
    #22
    maxpower29

    maxpower29 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Member:
    #52525
    Messages:
    5,892
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jordan
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Vehicle:
    2011 Tacoma 4x4 2.7 5 speed SWB
    All season mats, 2nd filter delete, DT header, Jardine cat-back, URD shifter, Bilstein 5100's all around at .85 front with Eibachs + .25 passenger/.5 drivers spacers and 1.5 AAL, 0w20 synthetic, Scanguage II, extra D rings, OEM backup camera+Mirror, bed mat, Extang Solid Fold, Popnlock 5300, Pro Comp 7089's 4.5bs 285/70/17 Revo 2s, De-badged
    2.7 4x4 MANUAL FTW
    Just had this massive debate for 2 months and picked mine and love it. Would I rather the V6? Fuck yes, but for the price? No sir
    Im getting 23-24 mpg also with a new engine. Once my AFE filter comes in and it breaks in I should be 25-26 easy
     
  3. May 3, 2011 at 9:17 PM
    #23
    EatMyTacomaDust

    EatMyTacomaDust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Member:
    #55366
    Messages:
    855
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2014 T|X "Black Beauty" Baja 4x4
    WeatherTechs [Front & Back], Console Vault, OEM Toyota Bed Mat, Tailgate Security Clamp MOD, SuperBumper Crash Attenuator, Exterior Cargo Net, OEM Toyota Cargo Divider, Cobra CDR 840 Dash Cam, Sliding Rear Window Security Bar, Front OEM TRD License Plate Holder, OEM TRD Front Skid Plate, Wet Okoles Front & Back - 1/2 Piped, Full Debadge except TRD OEM Red Tailgate Badge
    ^ My sentiments exactly. . .
     
  4. May 3, 2011 at 9:19 PM
    #24
    jblair

    jblair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Member:
    #53770
    Messages:
    137
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    99 taco 2.7L I4
    lift, big boy tires, deck plate, no more sway bar, painted stuff
    Dude, MT is definitely worth learning if not just for the mpg gain, fun, and better offroad and speed capabilities. 2.7 4x4 ftw
     
  5. May 4, 2011 at 6:44 AM
    #25
    jking3002

    jking3002 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Member:
    #37187
    Messages:
    198
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jonathan
    Kentucky
    Vehicle:
    Scion tC
    Ricer muffler, window tent, trd shift knob.
    DHK, I was a little surprised the MPGs were all so close, but just because the Canadian website has different numbers, the Toyota USA website must be lying to us all? lolol. :cool:

    My guess is that the two countries just use different testing procedures, and as a result got different...results. Actual mileage will vary by each driver. I get 18.5 city and 22 or so highway with my 2.7. I'm very happy with it.

    DHK, no offense, but I don't care to debate it with you. Myself and the OP are American's, so to me, it makes sense to use the American estimates. You are from Canada, you can use their estimates.

    Anyway, good luck OP!
     
  6. May 4, 2011 at 10:16 AM
    #26
    911-3.2

    911-3.2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Member:
    #11724
    Messages:
    45
    Gender:
    Male
    CT
    Vehicle:
    Sold - 2010 Access Cab 4x4 I4 SR5
    Curt Receiver Hitch, Access Literider Tonneau
    It's strange how the mpg rating for the 4 cylinder changed for 2011. Earlier years were 17/22 for the manual. I find my truck has no issue meeting those numbers.
     
  7. May 4, 2011 at 10:41 AM
    #27
    AndrewFalk

    AndrewFalk Science!

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36740
    Messages:
    2,062
    Gender:
    Male
    The North East
    Vehicle:
    2010 5 speed 5 lug
    :)
    I have no problem exceeding the EPA standards for my truck.
     
  8. May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM
    #28
    ecoterragaia

    ecoterragaia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Member:
    #49786
    Messages:
    474
    Gender:
    Male
    Bumpass, VA
    Vehicle:
    '06 Regular Cab, 4X4, 2.7L
    Care to explain which parts are wrong?

    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r10023-appx-a.pdf

    EPA's methodology is to use statistical analyses to "even out" the plethora of variables that influence real world fuel economy. This is mainly to protect the uninformed consumer from making a vehicle purchase partly based on fuel economy, only to find out that the claims were far from real-world observations. It also helps to protect manufacturers from lawsuits over what some would claim is false advertising.

    You're saying that Canada's projections are correct and US projections are wrong. Both, in fact, are correct, but the observed difference is reflective of the intent in producing those numbers. EPA doesn't just come up with methods on a whim. They collect large amounts of data, spend countless hours on research, have complex QA procedures in place, and most importantly, they rely heavily on input from the very entities they're regulating, including vehicle manufacturers. I'm sure that the Canadian authorities responsible for regulating posted fuel economy figures have comparable provisions in place also, but they're focus may be totally different and therefore have different methods and variables.
     
  9. May 4, 2011 at 12:50 PM
    #29
    maxpower29

    maxpower29 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Member:
    #52525
    Messages:
    5,892
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jordan
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Vehicle:
    2011 Tacoma 4x4 2.7 5 speed SWB
    All season mats, 2nd filter delete, DT header, Jardine cat-back, URD shifter, Bilstein 5100's all around at .85 front with Eibachs + .25 passenger/.5 drivers spacers and 1.5 AAL, 0w20 synthetic, Scanguage II, extra D rings, OEM backup camera+Mirror, bed mat, Extang Solid Fold, Popnlock 5300, Pro Comp 7089's 4.5bs 285/70/17 Revo 2s, De-badged
    They are not accurate because it simply doesnt tell you what truck it is. Access cab? Reg cab? Double cab? All are hundreds of lbs more/less then one another and would get different number. Thats how I know they are wrong, also because they base it on the gas some people use which others dont (ethanol in it). I have had about 1000kms on my new Tacoma and have no problem getting consistent 24+ mpg if that helps
     
  10. May 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM
    #30
    schiz94

    schiz94 Thread Jacker

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Member:
    #17674
    Messages:
    4,628
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Caleb
    Bellingham,WA
    Vehicle:
    08 Tacoma Reg Cab
    Morimoto Projector Retrofit, alpine cda-105,Wheelskins leather wheel cover, wet okoles,5% tint on back and 24% on front two windows,Debadged tailgate,custom sockmonkey centercap decals, xr rims pced gloss black.
  11. May 4, 2011 at 1:17 PM
    #31
    Kevlar1267

    Kevlar1267 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Member:
    #35962
    Messages:
    94
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Kevin
    Minneapolis
    Vehicle:
    2002 Tacoma SR5 4x4 2.7
    Magnaflow exhaust,K & N filter,Bilstein Shocks
    I have owned 2 2.7 L with auto's. A 1997 and a 2002. Both got good mileage and I just didnt like shifting all the time. I drive a FL70 Freightliner with a 6 speed all day and want something auto. I like the 2.7 for being buleltproof. I never had any problem with either truck with the motor. As for speed I have a motorcycle if I want to go fast. Speically with gas going up I like the 2.7L. But then again I got a new truck with a 4.0 V6 and love the power and I have been getting pretty good mileage with it so far and it's not that muc off from the 2.7L . I was getting about 17-19 in the city and got over 21 on the highway.
     
  12. May 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM
    #32
    frog13

    frog13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Member:
    #49990
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea,.....the AT pulls less RPM's than the MT on the highway,so,guess what...better mileage with the AT.
     
  13. May 21, 2011 at 6:06 PM
    #33
    frog13

    frog13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Member:
    #49990
    Messages:
    140
    Gender:
    Male

    Same truck...hmmm,I wonder if Canada has strict non-sense EPA regs as the US has...they are not the same.
     
  14. May 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM
    #34
    AndrewFalk

    AndrewFalk Science!

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36740
    Messages:
    2,062
    Gender:
    Male
    The North East
    Vehicle:
    2010 5 speed 5 lug
    :)
    There's more to it than that. Show me anyone on here with an AT that averages better than 26.4 MPG, or has driven over 500 miles on a tank, or has achieved 30-31 MPG on FULL tanks. (All things I have done with my MT.)
     
  15. May 22, 2011 at 3:25 AM
    #35
    ScottyDaug

    ScottyDaug Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Member:
    #55432
    Messages:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2011 Regular Cab 2.7 4X2

    Yes.
     
To Top