Looks like it's not a 7GR, EPC partially updated: 2GR-FKS

That's good and every time I push the button I'll feel like this guy:

 

^ "Be careful Michael, there is a Jeep in our path. It might get stuck in my undercarriage."

 

I'm all for good gas mileage but it better make more torque at low rpm than the Colorado

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz6qZOL8eRY

Be careful with that button, too much POWAH

 

Or this could happen with that button:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyWz6Uz0nmg

 

I think throaty, low RPM V6's might be a thing of that past. Except for maybe the Chevy 4.3 liter V6, which is by most accounts is a powerful V6.

 

Only if they continue putting car engines in the trucks. My bet is this is not going to go well. Cars are different, high revving engine is ok, especially one with Timing Belt.

 

Is it even possible to make a 3.5 liter get most of it's torque at low RPM?

 

Sure you can, its all about leverage. But making low end torque engine would mean spending more money to bring better quality product. Low end Torque means internals of the engine have to be bigger, stronger to survive.
Those companies no longer looking for quality. They just want cheap because they know people will buy whatever BS they selling.
I bet if they could, they would 3d print engine from plastic if it lasted 36 000 miles.

 

I think you mean that the stroke of the motor has to be different. Weight doesn't have much to do with Torque or else everyone would still be using steel internals... and they're not.

A plastic engine has been done. They used metal internals and cylinder sleeves. I think it was Ford that did it and the process made a 4 cylinder engine that weighed less than 200 lbs. I definitely see someone doing it one day in a production car as our understanding of material science gets better. Remember when Aluminum engines were the plague and no one with car knowledge wanted one? How about now? Times and attitudes change as technology gets better.

Automotive companies are looking for the best way to meet several standards and targets. One of the factors is the cost of production. Making fewer engines that go in multiple models definitely helps the bottom line.

 

This is a bit off topic, but I was wondering if the frame rot recall of the 2005+ models is one of the reasons why this year is not a clean sheet redesign? Makes sense to make frames for new model that will fit old model while the recall is still in effect...

 

In a nutshell, change of camshaft lobes and it's timing, adjust the fuel maps for the lower spectrum of the power band. There's more to it but that's the basic for more lower end power.

 

It does, and it is most likely the reason why 2016 has frame that looks like 2gen frame in every aspect, that would force the same cab and a lot of things that attach to frame to be the same.

 

Yes, if you increase combustion efficiency. If you water it down and ignore things like friction, compression of gasses, etc..., torque comes down to two things:

-Cylinder size: When you detonate your air/fuel mixture, it exerts a force per unit area (we will assume gasses don't compress so the combustion pressure will act on on the cylinder similar to how hydraulics work). Example: Two similar engines, one with an 85mm bore surface area and one with a 95mm bore surface area. Combustion exerts 10 lbs per mm squared. 85mm bore = 185 lbs per detonation and 95mm bore = 195 lbs per detonation acting on the cylinder.

-Stroke: A longer stroke will give better torsional force around the crank shaft. Easy enough to explain: Longer breaker bar equals more torque.

The 1GR has a 94mm bore and 95mm stroke which roughly equals 4.0L. The 3.5 (2GR) reduces the strock to 83mm (wiki so may not be accurate). This reduces the overall volume of the cylinder for a 3.5L engine. It also decreases torsional force acting on the crank per detonation as the distance between the cylinder and crank is smaller. Hence an overall lower torque.

Going back to my answer, higher compression will increase combustion efficiency (going back to the example, the detonation will exert more than 10lbs per mm squared) but predetonation is a problem. Direct injection allows higher combustion without the threat of predetonation. I don't know if this can help the 3.5L overcome the 4.0L but it helps.

No. Pleased dont ramble stupid.

 

I'm glad someone else gets it....it's been lonely in here lately.

 

Yep...more or less. Cars and trucks have shared the same basic engine architecture, just change a few things depending where you want the power to come from. Take a Ford 390 out of a LTD and toss it in a truck...(among other tweaks) change the compression, toss in a RV cam and some long tube headers...now you have more torque down low...

The Tacoma is more or less a recreational vehicle, not really intended for heavy duty work...why I started buying Toyotas in the first place, they were nice to jump into after operating barbaric heavy equipment/trucks all day. They are a bit more friendly to drive around...much more car like...and that is ok.

I am sure the new 3.5 will be fine for what it is. Not sure why people bitch about it being a higher revving engine. Toyotas always have a had higher rev engines...the old 22R was happiest around 3500 rpm. Took me awhile to get used to coming off American V8's....and now the American V8's are higher revving than the V8 engines of yore.

 

Also good to note that this V6 will be as powerful as many smaller V8's of the old days.

 

I think this statement is an important one. Most people arguing about this "minivan engine" tow nothing but air mile after mile. The 3.5L will be a much better engine as an every day truck.

For the individuals who think they're towing 8,000lb trailers with a 4,000lb truck; you're delusional. I don't care how much power it has under the hood. Getting it going is only the beginning of your troubles...

 

That in bold is where most of the arguments start. There's a small select group on here that would love to see a Tacoma with a V8 and a bunch of 3/4 ton rated parts. A mini 3/4 ton basically. The thing is that Toyota has no interest in that market in North America. That doesn't make them cheap. It likely makes them smart, since a larger vehicle like our 3/4 tons in North America with those specs is going to be more stable doing those tasks anyways. Not to mention how CAFE favours larger wheel base/footprint vehicles with heavier components and lower mpg's.

75% of Tacoma's likely never see offroad or towing. They are basically commuter SUV's with a box ready to haul the odd couch or big screen tv back from the store. Of the 25% that do go offroad or tow, at least 90% of them will be perfectly served with the 3.5 L motor. Toyota isn't go to do a whole lot for that last 2.5% of people because, honestly, they aren't worth anyone's time for how much money is involved. People get upset about that but it's true.

Hell, even the Wrangler now uses a "car/minivan/girly" motor and to be quite honest the guys I know that own one don't give two shits.

 

People who want a V8 so they can tow with their Tacoma probably don't understand towing in general. I think Toyota needs to put a modernized and high rev'ing 1UZ into the next Xrunner. Modernize the suspension (live rear axels) and frame and add a kick ass 6 speed...