Some thoughts after demoing a 4th gen

They squeeze more hp from a smaller engine by using forced induction, which crams more air into the engine and (combined with more fuel) produces more power. But the “penalty” is a more complex system overall. And the more complex the system, the greater the chances of components failing over time. So going back to our previous discussion re: engine wear/longevity…you end up trade one set of advantages/disadvantages for another.

 

electronic ignition is way more complex than points and yet more reliable. Coil on plug is even more complex than that and we are fine with it.

EFI is more complex than carbs but more reliable.

DOHC v6s have more moving parts than a pushrod v12 but we aren’t afraid of it.

6 SPD auto transmissions have more parts than a powerglide but the 3g Tacoma’s doesn’t seem less reliable.

 

All good points. But answer this for me: Will a naturally aspirated engine ever have turbocharger/compressor failure?

My point is, the potential for failure increases as the complexity of the system increases.

 

No, but does it really matter? What is it about turbos that having one fail is such a travesty when so many other things fail on all vehicles? Will a turbo 4 cylinder have a coolant crossover pipe leak? Will it have a timing cover leak? (It still has a timing cover but a much better and easier design to seal). Granted those are not near as debilitating but they are still very high dollar stupid flaws that people shouldn’t have to deal with, yet they do anyways.

I get why people are concerned about turbos, they do wear and go bad at some point, but so does everything else. I’ve never understood why a turbo is the one thing that people seem to think is life changing when it goes bad. Like anything else, ya either fix it or sell the vehicle and carry on. Just like if the engine, transmission, transfer case, or diff blows.

 

Will a 350 chevy ever have a variable valve timing component failure?

the potential for failure is not fixed by the number of parts. Cars are more complex now than in the 70s, but INCREDIBLY more reliable.

You might have more possible failure modes, but not all of those modes are equally likely…therefore overall reliability may or may not suffer.

 

Laugh all you want. It would not be the first time HP and torque numbers were "fudged". I am willing to give Toyota the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that my 4.0 V6 will still be working fine long after a turbo 4 has had to have some major repairs. Forced induction has its place, but it also has its problems. Not a fan, but I never force my opinions on others.

 

What basis do you have for doubting the numbers?

 

This is not really how things work. The whole purpose of having pressurized oil is to provide a film that cushions between the moving parts so that additional movement creates little to no additional wear.

It’s why non-OD transmissions of the 70s, 80s and 90s could still reach high miles after spinning 3300 on the highway their whole life. Wear comes down to load more than it does rpm. Turbo or not.

Not sure why you’re doubting the numbers. Do you think they fudged the 4.0 and 3.5 numbers too? So far the new engine seems to have better acceleration and pull, while achieving better mpg. It is doing better than the V6s and is advertised as such. Not sure what there is to question. Pretty much all turbo 4’s in the truck world (Ford 2.3L for example) are advertised about the same, and they all smoke the V6s.

 

My truck is naturally aspirated, and I don’t plan to add a turbo anytime soon. Perhaps you should ask folks that have dealt with turbos that crapped out

 

Usually the trade off with forced induction in a smaller engine is more rpm's. That's why I have my doubts about the cited numbers. There are no free lunches, as you point out - engine wear/longevity.

 

I know your truck is N.A., I see it in your profile picture. I was answering your question and asking another. I simply don’t understand why all sorts of high dollar items can fail, but all of a sudden a turbo under the hood is a much bigger deal. I’m sure the people with blown 2GR-FKS motors for $10-12K are much more pissed than those with blown $2-3K turbos.

 

Do we also have to talk to people whose NA v6s have crapped out? or whose automatic transmissions have failed?

 

If only you knew about the RPM range of the new motor instead of just making assumptions

 

I am not disputing the potential power output of a forced induction engine. Have run superchargers on vehicles before. My original post was simply that there is usually a trade off in longevity. Time will tell the tale.

 

I guess my take is that I don’t feel any of it matters. We have plenty of different problems we can already experience on the V6 without the turbo. Smaller motor with less parts but an added turbo doesn’t really seem like a decrease in reliability to me. Especially when the ridiculous problems like composite coolant crossover pipes and timing cover leaks that fail to quit, are now pretty much gone for good. If the V6 was known to be flawless, I’d have a different opinion, but at this point I’d rather have the added power and deal with whatever comes for reliability since the V6 had its own bag of potential issues anyways. Your opinion of the V6 is probably a lot better with the 4.0, they were simply more simple, and I can appreciate that.

 

Like I said, time will tell. I have been around long enough to see where "claims" did not always live up to reality. Not so much "assumptions" as experience. We'll see how they hold up.

 

As I stated above, any time a system increases in complexity, whether it’s the number of moving parts, or the “interconnectivity” of existing elements relying on each other, there is always the potential for failure at any of those points. I am not saying failure is guaranteed to happen. I’m merely saying the potential for failure increases as you add more cogs in the wheel, or steps in the process. That should be obvious.

 

The 2GRFE is a rock solid engine - but no engine is perfect. I understand that technology progresses and maybe this new turbo 4 will be awesome - I hope so. We all have preferences, and it's not a bad thing to have options. Who knows, I may be proved wrong - like I said before, it would not be the first time!

 

You and I are having two different conversations. Of course some NA V6s are going to fail, but never because of turbocharger failure. Whereas some fraction of all turbocharged engines will invariably fail because the turbocharger system failed (for whatever reason).

 

So, you think this engine will need more rpm to produce equivalent power to the v6s based on what?