6th Gen Fail - Hybrid for Overlanding

You always take a chance when you lift a wheel.

 

Downhill, lift a wheel and then slam the brakes, you are asking for trouble. The driver should have kept going with the flow, it wasn't such a crazy trail. It was 100% driver stupidity.

 

I love seeing everyone getting all spun up on a new model release, but nobody’s personally sat in the seat and driven one. I had a shit fit years ago about airbags and all the nanny crap, love it now. Walked away from this without a scratch. Other driver lost control on ice and hit me head on, totaling the truck.

 

Yeah

Yeah, you're right. A high-strung 4-banger is the perfect choice for the 4Runner. Why would anyone want a V6 with more torque? Damn, good thinking...

 

I wouldn't call it high strung. It makes pretty modest power for a turbo 4.

And, for the millionth time, it has way more torque than the outgoing V6.

 

Half the guys on this forum don’t understand anything beyond displacement… you expect the general public to??

 

The 6G is what brought me to this forum. The wife is looking to replace a Kona with something to do mild-moderate trails and gets decent MPG getting there. She currently uses a Jeep, but a 2 door Jeep doesn't fit our stuff AND our dog. And the dog is none too happy about it!

The 6G floor doesn't bother me, and the built in battery should be nice. Looking at the Trailhunter and I like the built in compressor too (currently use ARB twin). But there's no way I'm taking a 6G through the Ozark National Forest, or similar places, where the clear coat would be gone after the first ride, or getting half way up the doors in water. We'll use one of the Jeeps for that.

The Trailhunter will likely stay unmolested with the exception of a winch and bumpers. Her current Jeep was a 30k Jeep with 30k in mods, don't want to go that route again.


Pics of the wife's Jeep and her camping pack.

 

Funny to see 4 banger hate from somebody who drives an SI….

Bingo. None of these engines are living on the ragged edge of what they can tolerate. In racing they get 800-1000hp out of little 4 bangers.

Probably my favorite engine I ever owned was the Honda K20A2 motor in my old Acura.. The successor to the B16 in his SI, and probably one of the most modified Japanese engines in history along with its big brother the K24. Stock mine made 200hp and 140ft lb from 2L and had the rev limiter at 8300. Sounds like no torque, but 1st gear was so short you could drop the clutch and light up the tires no problem. You just had to not be afraid of rev noises and drive it hard.

I owned that for 10 years and never babied it and the only problem it ever had was a failed secondary O2 sensor it took me 10min to change. The tuner community have build these to run up to 250 hp with hot cams and ecu tunes and 300-400 hp with big turbos… all on the stock lower end. They are tough.

point is, none of these engines we are talking about are “stressed” enough for people that daily drive them to need worry.

 

The Socks are working overtime....if anyone or anything is stressed (by facts)...it is them. LoL Gotta love it.

 

I went back to read the press releases again.

2.4L Hybrid max is 326hp / 465ft-lb
2.4L Turbo is 278hp /317ft-lb


So the electric motor is adding 48hp and 148ft-lb. And as all electric motors do its delivering that torque from 0prm, which is why the torque curve is so monsterously flat low in the power curve. Add the 8 speed and its probably going to road drive like a beast compared to the 5th gen (and don't get me wrong I LOVE my 5th ).

And the NiMH battery bank is just a very evolved version of 1960s technology. not exactly space age here.... Honestly I would rather they used something like LiFePO4.


And it cements my believe that this turbo engine is nothing to be afraid of. 278hp from a 2.4L is nothing with today's engineering... you could do that easily without a turbo.

 

Hotels can be 250 a night - price gouging masquerading as inflation. Sleeping in your 4runner is such a good idea to save money and time. 250 is like 2 tanks of gas ...

 

I would consider a sports coupe and an intermediate SUV to be a slightly different application. The Honda B16A2 is an old-school classic and a hard engine to hate...

 

I'll soften my stance. These numbers from my original post are from the new TTV6 not the outgoing 1GR. My entire argument has been to have the TTV6 in the 6th gen 4Runner as opposed to the 2.4. It would have additional torque and would not be as stressed because of the larger displacement in the same application.

While Americans understand nothing beyond HP, what they actually like in trucks is torque, whether they understand it or not. The TTV6 has more torque than the 2.4 and would be better received by the consumer. Toyota would make money, not lose.

 

For the folks that sleep in the cargo area had better be pretty short if they get a 6th gen.
Look on how the 2nd row seat folds compared to the 5th gen.

 

I have to believe that Toyota is (literally) banking on the fact that 97% of the people who buy a 6th gen will never sleep in the cargo area. They market it as an overlander knowing full well that almost nobody will actually use it that way.

 

When they say they want “torque” what they really want is strong acceleration/pull off the line. That comes from torque at the wheels. Remember horsepower is a computed value, it’s a measure of torque x rotational speed. You can deliver a lot of torque at the wheels either using a big engine with lots of low end torque and tall gearing, or a small high horsepower engine with short gearing.

Both solutions work equally well from an engineering perspective and the smaller high horsepower engine is actually doing it more efficiently than the big modestly tuned motor lugging at low rpm but Americans don’t like the sound of high revs… they equate that with engine stress and wasting fuel.


The funny thing is that the big loafing engine that’s lugging at low rpm with the throttle wide open is actually being more stressed than the little engine that’s screaming in a a short gear and not being asked to deliver as much torque at the crank.

 

I still disagree. The 2.4 is going to have ample power for the 4Runner. And, the TTV6 probably wouldn't achieve the fuel economy that the 2.4 will (potentially). And, unfortunately, CAFE and other government regulations will trump the opinions of a handful of potential buyers.

I wouldn't have anything against it being an option, maybe on the top trims. If some people just really want the extra power, I can't argue with them. I don't have anything against wanting more power.

I just don't thinks it's necessary. The 6th gen will have roughly as much power as any 4Runner ever has, and more than the outgoing model. If they didn't have trouble selling the current generation with granny gears and an engine that many people considered underpowered, they certainly shouldn't have any trouble selling the new ones.

 

These CAFE engines swaps that are happening (V8 replaced by TTV6, etc.) is not about fuel economy but about emissions.

 

The thing that gets me is that TTV6 only buys you something like 30hp and 20ft on more power. Probably barely enough to offset the couple hundred more lb of engine you have to move. I’m actually surprised it made such a difference in tow rating on the GX…l

 

I'm curious how much room there will be between the half folded second row to the roof. I could potentially see a nice drawer setup in the cargo area level with the folded rear seats being an option. I also wonder if the height of the drawer setup would be sufficient for a fridge to fit underneath.

I do agree that the vast majority of the market won't be sleeping in their 4Runners. But, I'm sure some people are going to figure out a way to make it work. Personally, I might consider removing the rear seats altogether if I were to trade in my '19 for one. I already remove the ones in the '19 when I put my full platform in.

Once they show up at dealerships, I'll have to go look at one with a tape measure. For science.

 

CAFE is a fuel economy standard. Yes the driving factor behind it is to reduce co2 g/mile emissions but the spec is an economy spec.


Other EPA regs cover all the other emissions that the catalytic converter, EGR, air pumps etc deal with - NOx, CO, and particulates.

 

I'm sure it's both, which is why I said "and other government regulations." But, fuel economy is certainly a factor.

 

BTW, how does anybody sleep in the 5th gen? I just went out in the garage with a tape measure, I get 5ft 8 from the inside of the tailgate to the folded up 2nd row bottom. My 13 year old is already to tall for that….l

 

Taking out the rear seat bottoms will get you about 75" to the center console.

But, my original setup was 68". And, even though I'm short enough to fit, I still felt a little cramped.

Here's the current version:

 

Nice. What size tire is that you're running?


This is what I'm mostly hauling (when I'm not camping with scouts or such) ... I got tired of cramming stuff and bought a box trailer

 

That looks like fun!

The tire is a 295/70/17. Based on what I have read here, it was questionable whether it would fit underneath.

 

If that is the case, then we all need to start a letter campaign to Congress to demand the immediate halting of production for the Lexus GX550. The MPG numbers are almost identical to the outgoing V8. What is vastly improved is the emissions.

This can not stand and must be dealt with...apparently.

(mild sarcasm)

 

My understanding is that it's based on fleet average. So, they can have some vehicles that guzzle gas, but need to offset it with others. That's how Mopar wad getting away with putting Hellcat motors in everything.

I'm sure this is oversimplified. I'm also sure someone will correct me if I'm talking out of my ass.