The 4 cylinder?

True but 300hp out of 4cyl. in a taco would still get decent mileage.

 

300hp out of any 4 cylinder would be insane.

 

And FUN!

 

I had a 2011 2.7 with a 5 speed before my 04, it is a great reliable mill and does pretty good power wise compared to other 4 cylinders I've had. My 1985 Chevrolet Citation has a 80hp 2.5 4 banger in it and on flat ground it is great, but going up a steep grade I can get it up to 85 at the base of the hill and be doing 35 by the time I get over the top, after driving that car and then jumping into my 2011, it felt like a Mustang in comparison! But the little Citation serves it's purpose for me, I only drive it in the summer when gas is most expensive and I don't have to worry about getting stuck in snow. It consistently gets around the 25-30mpg range.

Reason I traded up to a double cab with the 3.4 V6 was I found a killer deal on a low mileage first gen, second I was tired of shifting gears all the time in a daily driver, and third I just needed more room than my access cab had. I've got 4 large dogs and fitting them all in the AC was zero fun, they were so uncomfortable in that thing. Now they are happy with a full backseat to themselves in my 04.

There's really no way to dog any Tacoma engine, all of them have been bulletproof from the beginning, the 2.4, 2.7, 3.4, 4.0, and now this new 3.5, all are great, proven mills and will not let you down if you take care of them.

 

It is a carryover but it's suppose to be re-tuned for the 6 speed auto so it may get better #'s across the board. Love my 2.7!

 

I agree, it's pretty pointless to put a performance oriented motor in a pickup truck. But, I'd be willing to trade off some longevity in the current 2.7 for better economy.

What I'd really like to see is a smaller displacement, modestly boosted turbo 4 cyl. It could easily produce the torque/power of a 6 cyl at very low RPMs, or run at 70mph at 2000 RPMs and not break a sweat. Put a little aerodynamic effort into the design (too late for that...) and you ought to get close to 30mpg.

Granted, you won't go 300,000 miles is such a truck without some engine repair/maintenance, but I would trade that off if the "payback" for better economy was there after say 50k miles.

There is a huge shift underway toward small displacement turbo motors right now. Think BMW, which just 8 years ago considered turbocharging to be heresy. Their naturally aspirated straight 6 was engineering perfection. Now they have turbo 4's in a big range of models, and I don't think you can buy a NA BMW any more. BMW may not be a great example on a truck forum, but I think what Ford is doing is pretty cool - a turbo 6 that beats the performance of the entry-level 8, and much better economy.

 

Like MQQSE and Nessmuk, I guess I'm a dinosaur. Where we differ is that I don't find the 2.7/auto combination objectionable at all. I live in a town with about 65,000 college kids, all driving like they're late for a class, and I don't have a bit of trouble merging onto the bypass where everyone drives the allowed 75 and then some. I've made a couple of 2,000 mile trips from here to Colorado pulling a trailer full of furniture and had no trouble whatsoever.
I'm anxious to see what the mileage figures will be with the new 6 speed auto. My biggest complaint is the gear spacing and how that affects downshifts. Should be much more drive able with the gears closer together.

 

I have nothing against an automatic at all. Never have driven a 2.7 auto so I can't say anthing about them pro or con. I have just never driven anything but a stick in 45 years of driving. When I drive my wifes car I have occasionally tried to depress a clutch that isn't there!

 

I do that all the time

 

Maybe but IDGAF

 

Here's my 4x4 4cyl of choice...
http://www.landrover.com/Images/710171_L316_15MY_EURO_LHD_DIGITAL_tcm281-89153.pdf

 

Yes. The cheaper insurance rate is sweet, too! I'll still run you down on the freeway...eventually.

 

Had similar problems when we got an automatic Subaru a few years back - wife and I both always drove manuals. These days there is little rational reason for the manuals though, they don't save anything with mileage and with certain AWD systems you actually get worse traction performance with the manual (hence why we went with an AT).

Still, really glad to see Tacoma is continuing to offer MTs. Some of it is just personal preference, but when it comes to off-road driving there are really pluses and minuses to both and it is nice to have the choice still.

 

Although my truck is an automatic, if I lived in an area where snow and ice were common, I'd have a manual...and 4wd, for that matter. It's much easier to control wheel spin and get traction in those conditions with a manual.

 

Not always, you really gotta be careful downshifting on ice with a manual, if your RPM's are too high, the tires lock up and send you fishtailing like crazy. I like my auto Tacoma much better on snow and ice than I did my manual Taco.

 

I would guess that at some point the 2.7 will give way to the new 2.0 turbo in the lexus NX. But before that the cost of production will have to go down. I would bet that we see the 2.0 with the 3ds tech in a few years unless there is a new push for electric cars and trucks, which could happen.

And I love my 2.7, its everything I need and nothing more. But my other car has the same displacment but gets slightly better mileage and makes 220hp and 300lbs more torque. So I can understand some people sayi g it lacks a certain something.

 

See what you did there...

 

wait wut

 

RCSB, I tried to buy a 74 Series III in 74 when I turned 21. I was a day late and a dollar short though and could'nt find one. Then they went missing from the US :-(
I still would like to own an old one one day.

 

Yeah, you have to be careful with downshifting AND with accelerating. I kind of think that goes without saying. I've honestly never driven my Tacoma on ice or snow, so I can't speak from personal experience about how they handle such conditions. However, I have owned a Ford Ranger and a Nissan hardbody, both with manual transmissions, and a GMC 1/2 ton with an auto, all while living in north central Oklahoma where we did get a fair amount of ice and snow. There is no comparison with how they drove in adverse conditions, although unless I had weight in the bed, they were all a little squirrely. Manuals were easier to take off and navigate, but offered no real advantage in breaking. The ideal vehicle for those conditions was my VW Squareback or my VW Rabbit, both with manual transmissions.