So Toyota is wussing out on the Engine, dang it. 270HP but add gearing

Im going to go on the record and say these numbers are a little low. Not bad but if this engine runs the otto cycle, numbers should be higher. If these are the actual numbers Im going to say this engine does not switch between the otto and atkinson cycle similar to the lexus 2GR's.

 

Yes, it's still possible. It all depends on how often it hits those revs and how efficiently it burns the fuel it's given.

They changed the motor to get better mpg, whether it'll be better just for CAFE or IRL remains to be seen.

 

Oh come on, I think the problem iwht 5.7 is it has way too much power for people to handle..
I got average close to 19 MPG on 1000+ mile trip. Fully loaded vehicle with Thule rack and extra stuff on tow hitch carrier. I would get probably better if I was not pushing 70MPH all the time on i-95.
My Tacoma 4L did the same distance multiple time averaging close to 21 MPG but with less load and slower speed average.
I would say that is not bad for V8 at all.

 

We had them in the fleet at work at one time. The 2014 5.7 L Tundra was getting about 14 mpg combined for us. That's just terrible. IRL reviews consistently get crappy mpg out of the 5.7 L. Even the EPA, which is generous on gasoline fuel economy ratings, only give the Tundra 5.7 L a 15 mpg rating overall.

I expect 16-19 mpg combined IRL now out of gas half tons. That's now the norm.

As for too much power . I bet you felt your penis grow a few inches just saying that .

 

BTW the 5.7 L isn't even the most powerful engine in the class. It's not even number 2.

 

Here is how a 4600 rpm peak torque could still outperform the Tacoma's 1GR-FE on the low end.

 

So, at best, 10 more ft/lbs at its peak, in real world, commonly used RPM's.

 

Good job, I was trying to put that together in my head.

 

I think this is called "wishful thinking" just like graphs showing more torque at lower RPMS than 1gr before this.
new engine at best can do better by 7% over 2gr-fe. And that's in Toyota document posted by somebody here and written by Toyota Eng.
7% is not enough to compete with 4.0 L 1GR and that's the truth.
If Toyota could have get the same amount of low end torque from new engine as from old one, they would have installed 3.73 gears back and not go to 4.30.
Clearly they could not get as much low end torque so they have to compensate with gearing.

 

Yep that and the little POS gas tank make it suck for towing and trips.

 

The truth is no one knows what the torque curve of the new motor looks like. The OP of that image was just showing how a motor with a bit less torque can still outperform another motor with a bit more torque.

I agree that the odds are that the new Tacoma engine does not have as much torque down low. However, I think the gearing will make up for it and the new Tacoma will likely out perform the old truck. To suggest anyone knows why or how Toyota engineered this truck is going out on a limb.

 

No.....

It had a gopro bracket, other then that the same as the last several years.

 

I don't think the gear ratios have been released yet. If it shares ratios with the Tundra 6AT, first gear in the box would be a 3.3 versus a 3.5 in the current Tacoma 5AT. The rear end change could be to compensate for the new gearbox ratios. We'll have a better idea when we see the full torque curve and the rest of the transmission information.

 

The toyota tundra 5.7 has a 4.10 gear ratio and a 4.30 gear ratio when you order the Tow package. Obviously the 381Hp and 401 Torque V8 isn't enough to tow they had to resort to high gears.

 

It has just been announced that Toyota will be offering a 38 gallon tank with the 5.7L for 2016. That's nice. Wish they would offer a 6.5' box with the Crew.

 

That Is great if it ever happens.
then they can work on the box size and ease of use oil filter change.
Then they may start selling a few.
But a full size truck with a mini bed is like tits on a boar hog....
useless. ...

 

Hmm.

These new numbers on the Taco aren't as high as I'd hope. However if it performs the same or better than our 1GRs whilst improving efficiency by a couple of mpg (1 mpg gain with the introduction of the akinson cycle doesn't seem right), then I still see it as a plus. It is an improvement after all.

 

That's my biggest problem with the Tundra. I'd even put up with the fuel economy. I was test driving Limited 4x4's back in Feb. but I could not get past the stubby box. It throws the entire look off. It just isn't quite right with that monster cab mated to the stubby box. A shame really because I'd swear the cab is as big as anything out there, including the F150 and Ram Mega.

 

Yes I do know it's Cummins and yes I was auto corrected. Ha