Is the 4 Cyl. more reliable?

well said sir

 

I’d take exception to the 4x4 actuators.. stupid idea to put them in. However, luckily Toyota has created fixes within their parts bin. FJ transfer case, and FJ/4Runner passenger axle tube. Complete manual 4x4 system after these mods.

 

I like the simplicity of the 4 cyl Toyotas. Have owned 5 over the years with no problems. Currently have a 2012 2.7 auto 4x4 regular cab Tacoma.
Use it to tow my motorcycles to Robbinsville,NC from Fort Myers,FL and back with no problem running the speed limit.
Don't know if the 4 cyl is more reliable than the 6 cyl. Probably both are very reliable.

 

I wanted the extras that came with it, the bigger touch screen, fog lights, sliding rear window, remote lock/unlock, etc. After having a base tacoma for 5 years I wanted a little more creature comforts

 

From what I have seen, read and heard there really is no difference. I worked with a guy who had almost 400,000 miles on his tundra and I worked for another guy who had a Tacoma with a 6 that had almost 400,000 on it. From what I have seen a Toyota is a Toyota and they all last a very long time if they are properly taken care of, maintained, and not abused. My 2004 2.7 has 167,000+ on it and still runs like new. Other than normal maintenance, batteries and a water pump under warranty and one brake job it has needed nothing.

I personally, would have just as much confidence in a 6 as a 4 when it comes to reliability, as well as, longevity.

 

The anecdotal comments are fine, but I'm still searching for facts. There must be a regulatory agency, Consumer Reports, or even Toyota who publishes reliability data on cars and pickups. Do Toyotas (and Tacomas, in particular) actually last longer and/or require less maintenance than most other comparable vehicles?

 

Hmm, good question about analytical info,

I can say you might want to dig into where the engines are assembled and where those parts are coming from. I don’t know much about where stuff for the 2.7 comes from but I can attest personally to the quality of the ALL Japanese made 4.7 that’s in my 2000 Land Cruiser. They are known to be a great engine when serviced and taken care of. Case in point is a recent Blackstone Labs report on my last oil change. At 445K it doesn’t burn any oil, runs like a top and has ZERO issues to report through the oil analysis.

Yes the Tundra engine is similar but ask someone who has had to swap a Tundra 4.7 into an LC and they will tell you there are many, many differences as well. Lots of stuff that doesn’t swap over.

I’m sure Toyota aims well on all their engines but I agree with you, after having owned an 82 Celica with e 22R and an 85 SR5 pick-up with a 22-RE I am just always impressed with the truck 4-cyl offerings from Toyota. The other thing is the rest of the vehicle is kind of over engineered in my own words around the 2.7

What I mean is the frame is the same as the V-6, the brakes, lots of other components as well. The only real difference is the engine and the gearing. Makes me feel better in that I don’t think I could really kill this engine unless I purposefully abused it and didn’t maintain it as recommended.

And don’t forget the 4-cyl also holds a tad more oil. That always makes me feel like it’s the little engine that could.


I did read that the new 3.5L for the Tacoma is a block that first was used in a Lexus. I don’t know what model or anything but I know from personal experience in the car world that Lexus like BMW and Honda/Acura IMPO take manufacturing and engineering very serious.

I remember when the Type-R Integra first was realeased and it had hand ported and matched intake and exhaust manifold ports. That was a big deal in 97! For a production pocket rocket at least. Fast-forward to 2002 and the RSX-S had a better flowing head that an ITR but due the advancements in the casting process the head was cast with better flow than the old ITR heads after being hand ported and smoothed. Not polished though.

I am really watching the 4runners, as 2018 has no real changes and no TSS yet. I just don’t see the 3.5 being a good engine in the T4R but guess we will see.

I end with this, on a 4-cyl note I am saddened that for 2018 Toyota deleted the 5-spd manual from the base AC trucks and replaced them with the 6-spd auto. To me that means definitely we may never see a diesel 4-cyl ever on US soil from Toyota.

 

I'm sure you can find what you are looking for as far as facts and reliability data but reading the high mileage thread from front to rear should give you a pretty good idea how reliable at least the 2.7 is and how long they are capable of lasting. It also comes from actual owners as well. Many have reached insane mileages with not many repairs at all. Just normal maintenance and normal repairs such as brakes and other things that are "wear items".

Geez, my 2004 4X4 with the 2.7 has 167,000+ on it with nothing more than one brake job at 60,000, a water pump under warranty around 60,000 and I just put in the 3rd battery about 6 months ago and I did replace the steering rack bushings and the outer tie-rod ends a year ago. That's it. I also replaced all the suspension with OME about 2 years ago but that is a given since Taco's are known to have crappy suspension right off the lot. Some replace all the suspension the minute they get a new one home at least on the base models.

 

I'll echo this - both the parts guy at the toyota dealership, and one of the service people have mentioned off the cuff that they don't actually see a lot of the 4 cylinder Tacoma's return for anything more than routine warranty period service interval maintenance.

 

I see no information on your build page on what tire/rim package you started off with - but i'm going to assume the OEM P265/65R17 at 30.6" diameter for a 2013 Tacoma SR5 TRD Sport. You threw on armor, and 10 ply series E 255/85R17 at 34.1" diameter. I don't see mention of any regearing in your first build page. That's a 11.4% difference in final drive gearing.

You took the engine, and truck out of it's operational comfort zone. Not the fault of the engine.

Needed to re-gear. I'm speaking from experience.

 

It's also a massive difference in rotational tire weight. That's why I went with 245's on my 2.7 this last time around in a standard load tire. Cooper ATW's. All that extra weight of the tire can really bog down an already gutless wonder. By the way, these ATW's, so far are incredible. Looking forward to see how they do in the nasty, upcoming winter which is what they are really made for. Excellent in summertime though. The Cooper ATW's were much lighter than the Michelin MS/2's they replaced and so far just as good or better. On road and off-road in dry conditions. Nice in the rain as well.

 

I know all about the rotational weight .. mine is obviously the service truck base that came with P-series 215/70R15 rim protectors. I technically overgeared the truck to 4.10 (tire size calls for 3.91) when i moved up to my final tire size of E-series 235/85R16s. I am glad that i have that additional over-gearing, but it does have a notable impact upon fuel economy as a trade-off. The engine, loves it.

 

I assumed you knew about the rotational weight. I was just adding my thought process when I decided on my new tires. It's funny though, everyone on this forum says the 2.7's come with 4.10 gears. I checked mine. They are 3.90's just as you stated. Personally, if I only used this thing around town and for short trips I'd love to have 4.10's or even 4.56's. It's geared a little high for most of my use but since I "do" take it on long trips once or twice a year it's nice to run it at the speed limit of 80mph where I live. Without revving it too much.

 

When I went in to get my recent oil change I was talking to the service rep working there and I brought up the point that I really enjoy my 4 cylinder truck. He mentioned that it will be cheaper and easier to maintain and work on the 4 cyl versus the 6 cyl engines. As an example he mentioned that the spark plugs are easy access on the 4 cyl but on the 6 cyl, it requires the engine to be lifted to get to them.

I'm not sure if he was talking about both 6 cyl versions or only one of them. It sounded like a big expensive job to do though.

My mechanical knowledge is very limited, so it would be interesting to find out if this is indeed true from more mechanically inclined members on this forum.

 

A number of the 4x4's come with the 4.10. My 3rd member came out of a wrecked 2014 4x4 SR5 (not TRD). I *think* the Pre-Runners can come with a mix of 3.73 and 3.90 rear ends, depending on whether V6 or i4... someone please correct me on that if i am incorrect.

 

Well, mine is a 2004 SR5 4X4 and it has a 3.90 rear end. I wish it was just a tad lower but as I said in my previous post. It works for me when I take a long trip.

 

Doh.. ! There I go, missing the generation gap again, LOL.

 

OP - another aspect of these 3rd gen 4 cylinder engines is that they are a carry over design/build from the latter 2nd gen build. At least that is my understanding after reading numerous posts, threads, and internet articles.

Also these current 4 cylinder engines have more displacement than older versions (i.e. wider bore/cylinders etc...). As a result they have similar horsepower to other older V6's made by other manufacturers. My 2001 Ranger was a V6 but my current Taco 4 cyl has a little more power.

Something to consider at least.

 

The first truck with the 4cyl was an sr5 and started with 245's. I then went with Mickey Thompson classic 2's 17x9 with kumho 284/60/17 p rated tires, then progressed to 1st gen Tundra wheels with the 255/80/17's a 33" tire. Yep I knew this was perhaps a little much but with the 4:10 gearing which is stock it seemed to handle it fine especially after the addition of the love header and freeing up the intake a little. It wasn't until I put the little camper behind it that I had issues. Overloaded? You may think so but not as much as you'd think the bumper was aluminum and I kept things as light as possible except where needed. I was tickled with it rt up until I tried to tow a very light trailer over a small mtn. Would a regear have done the trick? I would imagine so however I didn't have the day nds for that. It was easier to trade on a v6. The only time I've driven it in stock form was the test drive at purchase my wheels and tires were switched over.

 

This is why I'm looking only at Toyota!!